One-sided —

Texas school board searching for “another side” to theory of evolution

Now threatening to pressure biology textbook publishers.

We recently reviewed the documentary The Revisionaries, which chronicles the actions of the Texas state school board as it attempted to rewrite the science and history standards that had been prepared by experts in education and the relevant subjects. For biology, the board's revisions meant that textbook publishers were instructed to help teachers and students "analyze all sides of scientific information" about evolution. Given that ideas only reach the status of theory if they have overwhelming evidence supporting them, it isn't at all clear what "all sides" would involve.

The movie ended on a somewhat positive note; although the standards had been modified, Don McLeroy, the most vocal opponent of evolution education, lost his bid for reelection to the board. However, it now looks like his successor intends to carry on his legacy.

This week, the Texas Freedom Network (also featured in the film) posted a video to YouTube, filmed when the current head of the board, Barbara Cargill, was testifying before the state Senate. In the clip, Cargill says she has been examining the biology material that has been set up to help teachers meet the state standards (called CSCOPE) and zoomed straight to the material on evolution. And she did not like what she saw.

Barbara Cargill testifies before the Texas Senate.

Cargill's complaint is that the material overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, which was clearly not what she intended when she voted for the "all sides" language in the standards. Of course, evolution would have never reached the status of theory if it weren't overwhelmingly supported, so it's not clear what Cargill was expecting.

The testimony suggests that the confused language of the recently approved science standards was intentionally chosen to allow the board to exert pressure on publishers to undercut accurate science education. Which is precisely what many people warned at the time (the title of the Texas Freedom Network's announcement for the video starts with "Told You So").

Cargill will be back before the Senate next week, as the body is scheduled to vote on her appointment to lead the board, so we may be seeing more on this topic shortly.

Ars Science Video >

Apollo: The Greatest Leap

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

Apollo: The Greatest Leap

Apollo: The Greatest Leap

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

If anything, we need to educate kids to think for themselves, realize authorities aren't always right, and just because you are told something doesn't make it true.

This is exactly what Texas Republicans are opposed to. They precisely want their kids to be unquestioning, uninquisitive followers of authority.

That is to say, "good Christians."

This is part of my conspiracy theory about creationists being authoritarians. Evolution can be looked at broadly as essentially saying all life is driven based on present context (the current environment) instead of an absolute truth. Their authority is weakened if they can't stress their absolute truth.

We should teach the other side of the theory of gravity. Everywhere I read it never mentions alternatives.

Don't open that box.

Seriously, you don't want to open that box, the string-ists and the field-ists will take over this thread with equations.

Newton was correct enough for every day life, Einstein was correct enough for everyday engineering, and Hawking was correct enough for everyday physics. But since none of their work adequately relates mass generation to the standard model, it can be taken as a given that an alternative does exist, and that we have not discovered it yet.

But what if we live in a holographic universe? Then gravity could be a consequence of our perception of a 3D space projected from the underlying 2D reality!

And you know, as much as people make fun of Texas, they're having a pretty great run right now while more enlightened locals like California are... well not having nearly as great a time. At least as far as unemployment numbers go. (See the Dallas Fed and California Department of Finance if you want to see how the religious fundamentalists are doing vs the good people of California.)

I am not sure I see the relationship between religion and employment. Grasping at straws are we?

We should teach the other side of the theory of gravity. Everywhere I read it never mentions alternatives.

You don't want to open that box, the string-ists and the field-ists will take over this thread with equations.

Newton was correct enough for every day life, Einstein was correct enough for everyday engineering, and Hawking was correct enough for everyday physics. But since none of their work adequately relates mass generation to the standard model, it can be taken as a given that an alternative theory of gravity must exist, and that we have not discovered it yet.

I'm curious about Newton's theory not being good enough for "everyday" engineering. What do you mean by that? Is there engineering that accounts for gravity that needs better accuracy than Newton's theory, everyday sort of engineering and not interplanetary probes?

Wait, didn't the she say in the first part of the clip that she had been a biology teacher? A quick look at her bio page confirms that she worked as a science teacher. Let me quote some interesting parts:

Quote:

Barbara has taught and shared science with children in the Dallas and Houston areas for almost thirty years. She has received teaching awards such as the "Thanks to Teachers" National Excellence Award, the A. J. Sales Educational Award, and a National Audubon Society Award.

Barbara served on the Garland ISD Textbook Selection Committee, co-wrote curriculums for Hurst Euless Bedford ISD, and was the team leader for the district science curriculum development. Barbara traveled to the International Science Fair as a teacher-sponsor for one of her students. She founded "Project Nature" for Hurst Euless Bedford ISD, which allowed her high school science students to teach science to local elementary school students.

She has presented teacher workshops for Conroe ISD, Region XI, and for many Science Teachers' Association of Texas Conferences and Houston Area Early Childhood conferences. ...Barbara's interest in creative, hands-on learning for children and a love for science motivated her to found the Wonders of the Woodlands (WOW!) Science Camp program in 1994. She still serves as its director today. (www.wowsciencecamp.com) With a team of dynamic certified teachers and fantastic curriculum, the program attracts over 1,200 children each summer, ages 3-11. As Director of "Wonders of the Woodlands Science Camp", Barbara authors or co-authors every curriculum for which the program is so well known. ...Barbara also works closely with science teachers through in-services and consulting work. She volunteers to deliver the Science Camp discovery boxes to many local teachers. In area schools she leads various Science Outreach Programs. Birthday parties and other science programs keep Barbara busy year round.

All seems to indicate that Mrs. Cargill is extremely attached to her work as an educator. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that she's apparently a stealth Creationist. That kind of commendable dedication and enthusiasm for helping children learn may actually be dangerous to their education if they're being fed anti-science clap-trap from a trusted, engaging teacher who doesn't know better. She apparently pushes the "strengths and weaknesses" crap in public, but I don't doubt that in a non-public school setting she's much more explicit in endorsing Creationism proper. Here's some more places where Cargill's stance on evolution is fleshed out. Here's what she said to the Texas Insider four years ago, and here's a profile on her at Teach Them Science. The church science camp she helped found, Wonders of the Woodlands, requires prospective assistant teachers to "Support WOW!’s philosophy of teaching science from a Christian perspective." The page recruiting junior volunteers (kids with a 5th grade education) tells them to meet for orientation in the "Creation Station" part of the camp. Earlier descriptions of the camp on the web say it linked to Truth4Kids, which peddles some pretty ridiculous forms of Creationism ("SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW WHY ATOMS STICK TOGETHER! IT'S GOD!"), but I can't find links to it on the camp's site anymore. The fact that she's so active in producing material for other teachers is worrying. Also, it does make sense that her education was mostly handled by private Christian schools, especially her degree at Baylor. They're the university that gave the world William Dembski, one of the leading lights behind the Intelligent Design movement in Creationism. I don't think Cargill's years there overlapped, but Baylor has something of a history as a a seat for anti-evolutionary academicians. Overall it's a pity that she has to buy into the pseudoscience; otherwise she sounds like an ideal science teacher and the kind of instructor most kids desperately need. But if you're going to toss out something as fundamental as evolution and cover it over with a bunch of pseudoscience, all the great teaching habits and dedication in the world aren't going to help. In fact they'll just make the problem worse.

I'm curious about Newton's theory not being good enough for "everyday" engineering. What do you mean by that? Is there engineering that accounts for gravity that needs better accuracy than Newton's theory, everyday sort of engineering and not interplanetary probes?

Genuinely curious, thanks.

Accounting for Relativity is what makes GPS possible. Newton's laws of gravity don't work well enough.

Huh. My daughter goes to a middle school here in NW Austin, TX. Her teacher teaches serious science with no BS. I feel lucky that she is learning real science and not religious crap. But then Austin is the most progressive.area of Texas.

I am a Christian and I also consider myself a thinker and a bit of a scientist. I believe evolution is a possible explanation to the power of God. I am also open to other alternatives and ideas as Evolution is still a theory and while there is evidence to prove it, there is always the chance that something better may be discovered that better describes our observations. This is why science is so cool - nothing is ever concrete and everything can be proven and disproven over and over again as more facts arrive.

My views of what comprises and masters this world are ever changing, as are the facts and discoveries of modern science. I maintain an open mind and try to view everything through the lenses of my faith and logic.

The argument the Church bases its deviation from the Theory of Evolution comes from the concept that God created man in his own image. That concept takes on three forms: the idea that man is in the physical image of God, man is in the likeness of God as far as emotionally and spiritually, or a combination. This concept gives man identity by separating us from the animals and making us unique and special.

Two concepts puzzle me about evolution, but they are not enough to completely discredit the idea. The first is the missing links in the evolutionary heritage. Why are there large, unexplained gaps in the heritage? Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion. If evolution is the fundamental source of all life, how is it that so much of it came to be at around the same time? To me that is illogical to think that by sheer chance billions of organisms formed from the muck of the world.

I know that this may make me sound uneducated in some degrees. However, I stand by my beliefs and they are well thought out. I don't claim to know everything, or even claim to be right. I hold my claim to my opinion as truth to me.

To be fully on topic: I disagree with Texas school boards actions. Evolution is a fundamental observation of science and it should not be ignored or discredited without merit.

Contact me direct with questions or comments if you like. Please be kind and don't flame.

All the evidence we have points to an evolutionary process that is billions of years old. yet the Creationists state that all of that evidence was placed there by God when He created the Universe just 10,000 years ago.

Aren't the Creationist saying that God is lying to us by planting false evidence?

I really try hard to be patient with the "less intelligent" in our species, but I just want to grab these morons and shake them.

Yes, Evolution is "just" a theory...like gravity, relativity and valence bonds. Don't you idiots know what a Scientific Theory is? It isn't the same thing as when you think you've figured out who killed the grocer during last night's episode of Murder She Wrote.

My question, which is never clarified in stories like these, is if these people have an issue with evolution or Darwin's Origin of species theory. They can't argue that evolution is a theory. It's a demonstrable fact. Evolution is observed in everyday life, in the wild, and in the lab. Evolution is not a theory. It hasn't been a theory for quite some time.

Wait, didn't the she say in the first part of the clip that she had been a biology teacher? A quick look at her bio page confirms that she worked as a science teacher. Let me quote some interesting parts:

Quote:

Barbara has taught and shared science with children in the Dallas and Houston areas for almost thirty years. She has received teaching awards such as the "Thanks to Teachers" National Excellence Award, the A. J. Sales Educational Award, and a National Audubon Society Award.

Barbara served on the Garland ISD Textbook Selection Committee, co-wrote curriculums for Hurst Euless Bedford ISD, and was the team leader for the district science curriculum development. Barbara traveled to the International Science Fair as a teacher-sponsor for one of her students. She founded "Project Nature" for Hurst Euless Bedford ISD, which allowed her high school science students to teach science to local elementary school students.

She has presented teacher workshops for Conroe ISD, Region XI, and for many Science Teachers' Association of Texas Conferences and Houston Area Early Childhood conferences. ...Barbara's interest in creative, hands-on learning for children and a love for science motivated her to found the Wonders of the Woodlands (WOW!) Science Camp program in 1994. She still serves as its director today. (http://www.wowsciencecamp.com) With a team of dynamic certified teachers and fantastic curriculum, the program attracts over 1,200 children each summer, ages 3-11. As Director of "Wonders of the Woodlands Science Camp", Barbara authors or co-authors every curriculum for which the program is so well known. ...Barbara also works closely with science teachers through in-services and consulting work. She volunteers to deliver the Science Camp discovery boxes to many local teachers. In area schools she leads various Science Outreach Programs. Birthday parties and other science programs keep Barbara busy year round.

All seems to indicate that Mrs. Cargill is extremely attached to her work as an educator. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that she's apparently a stealth Creationist. That kind of commendable dedication and enthusiasm for helping children learn may actually be dangerous to their education if they're being fed anti-science clap-trap from a trusted, engaging teacher who doesn't know better. She apparently pushes the "strengths and weaknesses" crap in public, but I don't doubt that in a non-public school setting she's much more explicit in endorsing Creationism proper. Here's some more places where Cargill's stance on evolution is fleshed out. Here's what she said to the Texas Insider four years ago, and here's a profile on her at Teach Them Science. The church science camp she helped found, Wonders of the Woodlands, requires prospective assistant teachers to "Support WOW!’s philosophy of teaching science from a Christian perspective." The page recruiting junior volunteers (kids with a 5th grade education) tells them to meet for orientation in the "Creation Station" part of the camp. Earlier descriptions of the camp on the web say it linked to Truth4Kids, which peddles some pretty ridiculous forms of Creationism ("SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW WHY ATOMS STICK TOGETHER! IT'S GOD!"), but I can't find links to it on the camp's site anymore. The fact that she's so active in producing material for other teachers is worrying. Also, it does make sense that her education was mostly handled by private Christian schools, especially her degree at Baylor. They're the university that gave the world William Dembski, one of the leading lights behind the Intelligent Design movement in Creationism. I don't think Cargill's years there overlapped, but Baylor has something of a history as a a seat for anti-evolutionary academicians. Overall it's a pity that she has to buy into the pseudoscience; otherwise she sounds like an ideal science teacher and the kind of instructor most kids desperately need. But if you're going to toss out something as fundamental as evolution and cover it over with a bunch of pseudoscience, all the great teaching habits and dedication in the world aren't going to help. In fact they'll just make the problem worse.

How the heck are you really going to instill an understanding and passion for the natural world in children and young people if you are going to cut off their questioning at some point? Regardless of their belief in speciation the study of nature will eventually lead to thinking in time scales that will overrun what most creationists are comfortable with.

At first glance, "always two sides to the story" looks good! It makes sure all the views, beliefs whatever are heard. Take two steps back and it's not all rosy. Happyville, being the well educated town it is was largely free of ugly discriminatory behavior and it's a happy place, even for the discriminators. Happy gets diluted by "two sides" and the whole thing is kind of a net loss.

So we can only live in your utopia as long as we're not exposed to any viewpoints that contradict those the Utopian overseers want us to believe?

The article's about the *theory* of evolution and you're using the word *viewpoint* -- gotta love it!

This article misses the point that evolutionary theory is sometimes used in textbooks to explain the origin of life and all aspects of life that we have observed.

Then the textbooks are incorrect, as that would most likely be describing abiogenesis. That said, what might be happening is they're describing the origins of life to provide a starting point for describing how evolution works and just haven't been clear enough about the divide between them

Quote:

However, despite overwhelming evidence that life changes over time, the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of DNA and other biological structures and mechanisms.

It's not supposed to, that's a separate field of study. It just describes what happens when you already *have* living organisms

Quote:

Various theories or ideas about evolution also do not answer the question how does evolution work and where are its limits.

Random mutations selected for by natural pressures. If a collection of apes are in a region where food is at the top of hard to climb trees, apes which are naturally better at climbing (longer arms, narrower shoulders, long fingers) will be more successful in breeding because they are healthier. These apes will then be more likely to have offspring and pass on the genes for these traits.

Evolutions limits are things which can't be achieved by gradual change over time

Quote:

Just because there is overwhelming evidence, that does not mean that evolutionary theory explains everything.

Again, not intended to explain everything, just explain how things change over time and adapt to surroundings

Quote:

The theory of evolution also does not lend itself to empiricism, but rather to forensics which is a much weaker form of scientific study.

Nope, evolution has been observed in laboratory setting with bacteria and also with animals introduced to new habitats (there's one particular lizard that was introduced in the north of the US and, about 40 years later, had divided into 2 species: The decendents which stayed on the coast and those which went inland)

Quote:

I think that this type of article, for the benefit of lay people, should describe or at least reference commonly accepted definitions of the theory of evolution, and not just make dogmatic assertions by experts.

Considering experts are generally the ones who define what a scientific theory is, it's a bit difficult to describe the theories without their input. That said, if you want a detailed description of evolution there's plenty of materials online. Including it in every editorial discussing the subject would just be redundant and take up too much space

Quote:

For example, the notion that something doesn't become a theory unless it is supported by overwhelming evidence does not mean that there is some group of scientists who stamp a particular scientific hypothesis as a theory once the evidence reaches a certain stage.

Not sure what the point your trying to make here is. While there isn't a group which officially stamps it, claims that something is a theory when it isn't get shot down pretty quickly in the scientific community, so generally if there's a lot of controversy in the scientific community over something then it's not a theory yet.

Quote:

And, there are many theories of evolution, in fact, and many additional hypothesis about the workings of biological change. Most people think of evolution as an unguided process involving random mutations filtered by natural selection, aka, survival of the fittest. But, evolutionary theory (e.g., HOW evolution works) goes well beyond the simplistic model that Darwin first proposed.

Nope, there's one theory of evolution and it does work more or less how Darwin described. There are various hypothesis discussing the details of the theory, but they aren't separate theories of evolution, they're hypothesis being proposed *within* evolution.

Quote:

All the snarky comments (apparently by people in Austin where I happen to be right now), don't add a thing to the valid question of what and how should we be teaching kids about evolution and how to distinguish evolution from the origin of life.

The people in Texas are following in the footsteps of the Creationists pre-Dover trial, they actually want to discredit evolution and have it removed from the curriculum entirely but haven't been able to do it without violating separation of church and state. There's plenty of information on this online if you go looking, including documentaries from PBS on the Dover school trial, which are worth looking into if you're interested.

While I agree that they should be distinguishing between evolution and origin of life, what these people are advocating is teaching an "alternative" to evolution, aka intelligent design, which was a proposal from the Discovery Institute who were involved in the Dover trial where evidence was found showing ID was just a cover for Creationism. This isn't the same as what you're advocating, which is reasonable, but rather it's introducing pseudo-science and religion into science classes by pretending it's science

Quote:

The key point here is the one can be both an evolutionist and a creationist... they are not mutually exclusive ideas. Also, most high school biology text books (and introductory college textbooks) do a terrible job and are laden with errors of fact and reasoning.

These proposals come from a group of people who are young earth creationists and deny that evolution ever occurred. Some people can believe both, but these people don't and are opposed to people teaching it at all. Can't comment on textbooks, but generally they will use simplified versions of the facts and then refine them as the person studies further into the subject (so high school would be simplest, then early college would be more complex, then post-grad even more complex and so on). It's a way of avoiding overwhelming kids with information and instead giving them a "good enough" version which they can learn more about later. Pretty much every subject does this, including engineering and physics.

Quote:

Finally, it is disappointing that Ars, known for well researched and thoughtful articles about technology has chosen to take a polemical approach to its science writing. This is a very important topic that needs the perspective and approach that Ars can bring to a topic. For some reason, Ars has relaxed their usual high standards and taken the low road.

Seeing as this is a group of people advocating teaching a religious belief with no scientific backing in the science class as an equal scientific theory to evolution (hint: it's not even a theory, and as far as I'm aware they still haven't published in anything not produced by the Discovery Institute), Ars is entirely correct in publishing articles about their underhanded actions, especially since they have previously been told by the Supreme Court that their "alternative theory" (Intelligent Design, aka Young Earth Creationism) was religion and so could not be taught in a science class.

All the evidence we have points to an evolutionary process that is billions of years old. yet the Creationists state that all of that evidence was placed there by God when He created the Universe just 10,000 years ago.

Aren't the Creationist saying that God is lying to us by planting false evidence?

Creationism is religion not science. No point in trying to understand it from a logical point of view.

A priest I know in a local church has this view on evolution. "Evolution is just one of God's tools." Kinda surprised me when he told me that. Never expected that kind of mental flexibility from a man of the cloth.

I am a Christian and I also consider myself a thinker and a bit of a scientist. I believe evolution is a possible explanation to the power of God. I am also open to other alternatives and ideas as Evolution is still a theory and while there is evidence to prove it, there is always the chance that something better may be discovered that better describes our observations.

Open mind is appreciated, but you're wrong in saying that "Evolution is still a theory" as if it could "graduate" to a higher rank. Yes, it can theoretically be disproven, in whole or in part, though that doesn't seem likely given the strong match between the theory and observed phenomena. Just nit-picking, sorry

We should teach the other side of the theory of gravity. Everywhere I read it never mentions alternatives. It's a theory damnit.

Here's what I want to see taught in schools. God attached an anchor to our feet so that we never float off the earth. That's my theory. Teach it. If god didn't attach heavy anchors everywhere, we would simply fly off. That's my alternative to the theory of gravity.

As seems to be the trend of late, I would like to also support this theory as well and be the first to own the patent to these invisible anchors. I will be sure to see everyone in court!

We should teach the other side of the theory of gravity. Everywhere I read it never mentions alternatives.

You don't want to open that box, the string-ists and the field-ists will take over this thread with equations.

Newton was correct enough for every day life, Einstein was correct enough for everyday engineering, and Hawking was correct enough for everyday physics. But since none of their work adequately relates mass generation to the standard model, it can be taken as a given that an alternative theory of gravity must exist, and that we have not discovered it yet.

I'm curious about Newton's theory not being good enough for "everyday" engineering. What do you mean by that? Is there engineering that accounts for gravity that needs better accuracy than Newton's theory, everyday sort of engineering and not interplanetary probes?

Huh. My daughter goes to a middle school here in NW Austin, TX. Her teacher teaches serious science with no BS. I feel lucky that she is learning real science and not religious crap. But then Austin is the most progressive.area of Texas.

Look at any red state where the majority of scientists and engineers and other higher education people congregate due to jobs and stuff - those areas are generally inevitably blue and children are better educated in general.

All the evidence we have points to an evolutionary process that is billions of years old. yet the Creationists state that all of that evidence was placed there by God when He created the Universe just 10,000 years ago.

Aren't the Creationist saying that God is lying to us by planting false evidence?

Among creationists there are 'old earth' and 'young earth' proponents, not all agree with a 10,000 year timescale.

Regarding planting false evidence, many verses in the bible are critical of the 'wisdom of man', so I don't think most Christians would view it as 'God lying'.

My daughter didn't like the idea of evolution. She didn't want to be an animal.

My reply was that God is a frugal engineer. He used things that were already in his parts bin.

The professor in my college sociobiology professor warning us that his subject was controversial.

Then he showed us the math.

I think creationism should be mentioned in science class. Then explain that scientific theories must have predictive value.

Then show the students the math.

No.1) Theology should not be anywhere near a science class except to say "Theology isn't science."2) WHOSE creationist theology are we going to "mention" in science class? Abrahamic? North American Native? Australian Aborigine? Hindu?

Two concepts puzzle me about evolution, but they are not enough to completely discredit the idea. The first is the missing links in the evolutionary heritage. Why are there large, unexplained gaps in the heritage?

Fossilization is an extremely rare process, and does not happen everywhere all the time. Usually the remains of dead organisms are eaten, scattered, rot away, or otherwise don't survive long enough to be buried. Even those that are buried don't all turn into fossils. There are several ways to make a fossil, but they all take time and just the right conditions. Finally, even if something does wind up as a fossil, geological forces have to be just right to put those fossils were we can actually find them. The rock over them has to be weathered and eroded away, or we have to be digging in just the right place to find them (lots of old fossils were discovered in chalk or coal deposits, where nobody expected them; that aroused a lot of scientific curiosity and helped lead to paleontology as we know it today). In short, fossilization is very rare, and it's even rarer for a few fossils to be where we can find them. When you consider just what the odds are, it's more amazing that we have as many fossils as we do than that there are significant gaps in the record.

Quote:

Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion. If evolution is the fundamental source of all life, how is it that so much of it came to be at around the same time? To me that is illogical to think that by sheer chance billions of organisms formed from the muck of the world.

Life existed long before the Cambrian Explosion. What we call the explosion may just be a coincidence in that the first hard body parts (shells, exoskeletons, etc.) were starting to evolve, leading to an kind of evolutionary arms race in new forms of protection and weaponry just like the advent of the atomic bomb led to a military arms race in the 20th century. Once one animal has a shell, other animals trying to eat it will need something that can get through or around it. Those that develop such biological weapons then have the upper hand, which puts pressure on the original types of creatures to develop new ways to protect themselves, etc. etc. A few things about the Cambrian Explosion. One, it wasn't exactly a "sudden" event in any sense except geological time. The "explosion" happened over a period of tens of millions of years. Two, we can clearly see evolution at work within the "explosion." We see that during those tens of millions of years, animals were changing rapidly and undergoing evolution that led them from one form to another to another. Three, at least part of the rapid-seeming nature of the "explosion" may just be due to the way things fossilize. Before the Cambrian explosion, there were few hard body parts to be preserved. Most animals were soft-bodied, and those don't tend to fossilize very well. When you think of the way you can find snail shells in your garden, but dead slugs leave nothing behind, it makes more sense. Once there are animals with shells and exoskeletons and bones, there's just a lot more material being left around to turn into fossils. Evolution may have been playing out just as fast "before" the explosion, but it wouldn't have left as many traces behind for us to discover. Finally, it's worth pointing out that nothing we think of as a modern animal existed before, during, or shortly after the Cambrian explosion. All the organisms we find are almost totally alien to things that are around today. Some creatures we can place in broad groups like "mollusks" or "athropods," but even those classifications are very broad and none of the Cambrian examples survived unchanged. Many types of living things only evolved after the Cambrian period; also, many of the things that lived during the Cambrian have left no modern relatives and wouldn't fit into our current classification of animals. Wikipedia's article on the Cambrian Explosion covers a lot of ground, and is a great place to start reading about it to answer some of your questions.

I am also open to other alternatives and ideas as Evolution is still a theory and while there is evidence to prove it, there is always the chance that something better may be discovered that better describes our observations.

Just to clarify, "theory" in science is as certain as things get, even more so than laws, and usually have undergone decades of peer review before being accepted by the general scientific community. It's unlikely that evolution will be replaced (it will change though), and there isn't a way it can really be more proven than it already is. Similarly, within science a "proven" hypothesis refers to mathematical proof, not something with lots of evidence. This is to recognise that even great theories are occasionally found to be wrong (like Neuton's), so there are no real "truths", just things that gradually come closer to them.

Quote:

Two concepts puzzle me about evolution, but they are not enough to completely discredit the idea. The first is the missing links in the evolutionary heritage. Why are there large, unexplained gaps in the heritage? Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion. If evolution is the fundamental source of all life, how is it that so much of it came to be at around the same time? To me that is illogical to think that by sheer chance billions of organisms formed from the muck of the world.

There aren't any missing links, this is an inaccurate criticism which hasn't actually been found to be the case (the running joke is that for every intermediate fossil found, two more missing links appear. One on each side). There are actually very complete fossil records for certain animals (whales in particular, evolving from 4 legged land mammals) and the human fossil record is becoming more densely populated all the time. What "gaps" there are can largely be explained by the difficulty in fossils forming, it's quite a rare phenomenon to happen naturally.

The Cambrian Explosion was when life first started evolving hard shells, like insects. It was the first point when there was anything which *could* fossilize, so there was a "sudden" (in geological terms. Millions of years in real terms) appearance of lots of fossils. There are much rarer examples of fossils of soft bodied creatures (kind of like worms), but considering how difficult it is for fossils to form anyway, things with soft bodies fossilizing is incredibly rare.

In short, fossilization is very rare, and it's even rarer for a few fossils to be where we can find them. When you consider just what the odds are, it's more amazing that we have as many fossils as we do than that there are significant gaps in the record.

And that isn't even taking into account the "man is a dick" effect on historical shit. Even if you discount the "bone wars," how many fossils do you think ancient modern man destroyed the hell out of doing things like building great walls in china and pyramids all over the damn world?

This story reminds me of a very heated debate with a few coworkers, where they have the belief that the 1950's was the golden age of America, and we should strive to roll back the clock to those times. They are conservative in political views and are religious, and I believe people have the right to believe in anything they choose.

What irks me about the argument is they seem to refer to "The Golden Age of America"™ as though there were no crime, murder, lies, and everyone was wholesome and nothing horrible happened at all. That's obviously not the case with research, but presenting any evidence against the strongly held beliefs only received responses akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand.

What it seems these people truly want a return to, is to the Dark Ages, not the 1950's or any specific period of time in America. Having a campaign dedicated to attempting to eradicate the teachings of science because it interferes with your religious views doesn't seem like it belongs in the 21st century, but here we are.

The separation of Church and State exists for a reason. If these people don't like the teachings of that newfangled "science" and fear it may turn the children of their flocks into Satan loving fools, they should put their children into private, religious schools. Attempting to reunite Church and State when the founding fathers clearly understood the abuses of power it holds only strengthens my beliefs that these people need to get their kids into private religious schooling. Keep your nose out of public, non CHURCH related education, thank you very much.

If by "proven" you mean observed and documented it happening? Then yes. Evolution is an observed, documented fact. The theory of evolution is also a fact. Something can be a fact and a theory at the same time. In science, "theory" is just an explanation for observations that helps you describe its workings. Nothing prevents a description from being factual unless it's wrong.

Quote:

... or that Intelligent Design is wrong?

Intelligent Design can't be proven wrong, it's non-falsifiable. That also disqualifies it from being "science," generally speaking. But we have no good reason to think that ID is correct.

This is good though; by giving Texas' youth a comedy-esque science education, your invariably giving other students from other districts a better shot at a job in Texas. Plus; It's going to be fun when eventually only Alabama & Texas are still adamant Science is the devil's lies, It's going to be "Spot the Unemployable. Hick Style."

This is good though; by giving Texas' youth a comedy-esque science education, your invariably giving other students from other districts a better shot at a job in Texas. Plus; It's going to be fun when eventually only Alabama & Texas are still adamant Science is the devil's lies, It's going to be "Spot the Unemployable. Hick Style."

Don't forget Mississippi. Which is honestly the only defense Alabama has - "At least we aren't Mississippi"

This is good though; by giving Texas' youth a comedy-esque science education, your invariably giving other students from other districts a better shot at a job in Texas. Plus; It's going to be fun when eventually only Alabama & Texas are still adamant Science is the devil's lies, It's going to be "Spot the Unemployable. Hick Style."

Not only that, but (and keep this in mind, those who profess a love of America) this comedy-esque education gives a step up to those students around the world who are receiving a true scientific education.